You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
May 22, 2018, 03:33:41 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: "The Cult of the Occupation" or The International Media Coverage of Israel  (Read 5652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RoenTopic starter

I'll level, from the outside this seems to be getting acrimonious on both sides.  Maybe time to step away from the computer for a moment, guys?

I love the reference, I really do :P
I assure you, I'm perfectly calm. I just don't appreciate it when a thread of mine serves as a stage for that kind of bickering and disrespect, I'd say as much (and have) to any other participent that chose to behave like that. I'm no admin or moderator, I don't have any authority here, but as the creator of this thread I do feel like I have some responsibility for how the debate is conducted and people are treated. That's the only sentiment I have in this.

But all of that is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Let's move on from this business and return to more appropriate discussions :)

Offline elone

A. You might not have noticed, but you have been debating with more than one person and your very recent post, the rude and petulant one, was to Dror's post, not mine.

B. If you cannot continue this discussion with a respectful and accepting spirit, and without these dismissive remarks, then perhaps it is best that you leave and maybe return once you have settled down.

I'm not telling you to go, but if you want to, I now believe that you should. I did not create this discussion so people would be berated in such a rude and condescending tone.

I apologize, I did apparently get confused about who was posting what. I do not really consider my remarks rude or petulant, however. I do find it difficult to not stand up for the truth.

Offline dror

For example, the maps of Palestine, you claim are fakes because it calls the land Palestine.

That's not why I claimed they were faked. I claimed they were fake because of how they split the territories of the British Palestinian Mandate between Jewish cities, and claimed everything else belonged to the Palestinians.

Apparently Palestine never existed.

I suppose that depends on what you call Palestine.
Palestine was a piece of land which got its name from the Romans before Islam ever existed, and before the Arabs came out of the Saudi desert. Interestingly enough, the Romans changed the name of Judea and Sameria to Syria Palaestina in order to try and break the Jewish connection to their ancient homeland. It was named so after the biblical people of Paleshet (Philistia, a sea faring people who invaded Israel according to the bible and archaeological evidence).

If you mean to say that I seem to suggest there was never a country called Palestine, well, I'm not suggesting it so much as saying it outright. There was NEVER a country, independent or otherwise, called Palestine that existed in the land of Israel, before or after 1948. That is a known historical fact that was never disputed, but the map I brought is an attempt to mislead people just about that.
Unfortunately, there is a host of people today who believe that the state of Israel was created on what was once a Palestinian state, and that is just a lie, plain and simple.
Once cannot deny something that never existed. Palestine was the name of a piece of land. That's like saying that Sahara was a state because there is a piece of land called the Sahara desert, or saying that there is a country called the Alps.
The Palestinians are Arabs who adopted the name Palestinians because they lived in the region called Palestine. Their national identity was formed after all the Arab states around them were formed and they were left without a nationality, and the British mandate was supposed to end with two states, one for the Palestinian Arabs, and one for the Palestinian Jews (did you know that before 1948, Jews in Palestine were also called Palestinians, because they lived in the land of Palestine?)

If you want to deny the existence of Palestinians, fine, we have nothing to talk about.

I do not deny something that clearly exists.

It would seem to me that people who live in a land referred to as Palestine have the right to call themselves Palestinians. You rant over those maps, but pass over the map produced by Israelis showing no Palestine. There is just no response to that.

I did comment on the map, and said exactly what my personal opinion was (that the borders should have been shown) but also showed that this goes both ways.
Unfortunately, for the moment, none of the parties recognizes the other, yet you only seemed bothered by Israel.

You say Nasser violated the ceasefire. Where did you get that information? What ceasefire? Are you talking about the 1949 Armistice agreement? There were multiple violations of that on both sides. Who knows, as far as I am concerned just another one of your opinions.

Well there is a pretty big differences between the small-time skirmishes between Israel and Egypt, and the preparations for war that went on.
Here is a list of things that happened PRIOR to Israel's attack:
1. The massing of Egyptian troops in the Sinai desert.
2. Egypt BANISHED UN PEACE KEEPING FORCE that they agreed to under the 1956 ceasefire agreements.
3. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (an act that, by itself, Israel has previously declared to be casus belli (cause for war).
4. Iraqi troops and armor began to deploy in Jordan (Just a reminder, though Israel has no border with them, Iraqi troops were part of the 1948 war of independence).
5. Defense pacts were signed between Syria and Egypt, as well as Egypt and Jordan.

So... Aside from the general preparations for war among Israel's neighbors, we have specific violations of the ceasefire in (A) putting troops in the Sinai desert, (B) closing the Straits of Tiran and (C) banishing the UN's peace keeping force.

Just as a side note - that withdrawal of the UN peacekeepers is one of the reasons Israel, to this day, doesn't trust the UN and basically doesn't give a shit about it. Israel views it as untrustworthy in a crisis and unwilling to do what it needs to to complete its mission.

You still refer to the video as a fake. Your opinion again, everyone else seems to think that the security camera footage is real.

Well I don't know who "everyone" are, nor do I know if its fake or not. I DO know that there are A LOT of fake videos out there (I brought one because it was from the same location, but as I said, just search Pallywood and you'll find plenty), and I said that while clearly not ALL are fake, the fact that there is such a large industry of fake videos out there makes it very difficult to trust them as a reliable source of information.
Even in the video you brought, at the beginning, you see one of the kids with a rogatka (which might seem primitive and "harmless", but Israel already suffered casualties to it).

By the way, the soldier who shot them down in cold blood has not been charged with murder, only manslaughter, and as far as I can find he has not been convicted of anything.

So? A lot of murderers are "only" charged with manslaughter. Murder requires very specific conditions, including intentions and such, and that is very hard to prove in a court of law. Are you saying these soldiers don't deserve a fair trial because of a political situation?
As for convictions - I have no idea. That doesn't always gets published. But just because it wasn't published or you haven't found anything doesn't mean that they weren't convicted, especially since the western media doesn't really care when Israel does something right, only when it does something wrong.
However, your tone suggest that you would like punishment with no trial. If the courts decide that the shooting soldier is innocent, would you accept it? Or would you claim that you know better than the court? Or perhaps the government controls the courts? Because if you read Israeli newspapers, you'd know that the courts and the governments hardly see eye to eye on a lot of things. Yet you automatically assume that the soldiers are killers, and even go on to say that no one was convicted. So you already made a verdict, and now if the courts rule differently, you claim the courts are at fault.
I have to agree with Roen on this one - it seems like you have an opinion, and you just bend everything to fit that narrative. Did you ever think that if (and again, I don't know if they did or didn't) there weren't any convictions, it is because they were simply not guilty? If it did occur  to you, you haven't shown any sign of it so far. You simply declared yourself judge and jury.

Did you see the one with the little girl riding a bicycle on a Jewish only road in Hebron last week? The IDF stopped her, puthis foot on her bike and she ran off crying. They threw her bike in the bushes. Nice guys. Oh yeah, probably faked.

That one wasn't fake, and it was a terrible thing to do.
Did you see the one where the soldier gives a hungry Palestinian child his sandwich in the middle of the night shift?
You seem to think that just because I (and I guess Roen) don't think Israeli soldiers are all monsters, that means we agree with EVERYTHING Israel and any soldier does. That's just not true.
Israel does A LOT of things I don't like or agree with, and would never approve. There are many soldiers who choose to ignore their orders or act like bullies and monsters. But those are not necessarily representative of the IDF.

Again, 2 states for 2 peoples. Read my post. I said it implied separatism, not integration. Really though, how many settlers do you think would agree to live under Palestinian rule? Honestly. Israel will probably annex it all so it will not matter.

Well Israel offered the Palestinians a trade of "mile for mile", as in Israel will keep major settlements and will give the Palestinians other lands elsewhere. The larger settlements are also closer to the border and some are 200,000 people by now, and technically impossible to evacuate, so there really isn't much of a choice.
As for the question - I don't know or care. If the settlers don't want to live under Palestinian rule (for which I can't blame them... even the Israeli Palestinians don't want to live under Palestinian rule and have said time and again they would rather keep their Israeli citizenship), they are free to return to Israel proper. They are still citizens, after all.
But the settlements aren't the barrier to peace. There were no settlements before 1967, but there was no peace. The reason for that is that the Palestinians see ALL of the Jewish cities in Israel as settlements.

Also, the Palestinians don't try people who kill Israelis because the IDF and police kill them, hence no trials. Like the Israeli's who celebrate Kahane and Goldstein and dance in the streets shouting Death to Arabs, there are always going to be extremists.

Yeah, but there seems to be a lot more extremists on one side than the other, doesn't it? The amount of Israelis who take up knives and start butchering Palestinian babies in their beds is 0. The closest thing we've had is two teenagers who burned a Palestinian kid alive, and they were caught, tried as adults and are now in prison so far as I know. That story shook Israel to its core. How many Palestinians were shocked when a Palestinian infiltrated the house of a family and butchered 5 people with a knife, including a baby several months old? He was celebrated as a hero.

Ben Gurion airport, first you deny that anyone is harassed or denied entry, then you say, of course they do it to prevent terrorist attacks.

Not ANYONE is denied entry. That's what the checks are for. Unless you support terror or is associated with a terror group or possibly BDS leader, I doubt anyone would care. But Israel is far from the only country to check people entering it.
Again, this is a classic "Israel is doing too well" argument. Israel has enemies (I'm talking about REAL enemies, not people who disagree with Israeli policies), and it is doing a rather good job at keeping them out. Of course that would cause people to tell Israel to stop. That is the automatic response when Israel is doing something too successfully.

What about Israeli terrorists. They get arrested, maybe, but not shot down.

How many Jewish terrorists do you know of?
Goldstein was killed. Others were caught after the act (days or weeks, not moments) or turned themselves in, hardly when anyone suspected there was immediate danger.
We're talking here about a terrorist who, moments before, was stabbing people.

Again, the videos of soldiers shooting women who the soldiers say had a knife. Half a dozen armed soldiers in combat gear and one woman wielding a knife. They could not disarm her? No they gun her down. Has happened more than once.

Has it?
Can't disagree with you on this specific case, but the vast majority of cases aren't at all like that.
And even if they were - there is a question to be asked about whether or not terrorists SHOULD be disarmed instead of killed. It's very easy to say that from afar, but you don't really seem to know what goes on in Israel.
Arrest and trial isn't a deterrent for Palestinians. Most say they are proud of what they did. If they sit in prison, the PA pays their family a VERY nice salary, far above the average in the West Bank, and they have streets named after them.
A lot of Israelis believe, and I haven't decided yet myself, that any terrorist should know he isn't coming back from an attack, and that maybe that will be a strong enough deterrent. I haven't agreed with it so far because death isn't a deterrent for them either, as it is also considered an honor. So Israel loses either way with that one.
In any event, it's not as clear cut as you seem to present it.

Speaking of terrorists, what do you think of Irgun, Stern gang, Lehi, Palmach, and Haganah? Everything we hear is terror tunnels, terror this, terror that. Why is it that no one acknowledges that Israel was born by terrorism. Terrorism against the British and Arabs. Assassinating UN people. Ancient history? Shamir and Begin were both terrorists and ended up as prime ministers. Who did you say exalted their terrorists?

Well for one thing, you can't put all of those organizations under the same hat. Hagana and Palmach were defense organizations, created to protect Jewish settlements from Arab attacks (of which there were many. If you think Arab terrorism started in 1967, you are in for a surprise). They usually dealt with attacks and retaliation for attacks, but they never for example targeted women and children (not that accidents didn't happen, but they were hardly targeted).
As for other groups - some where more terror-like than others, but there are several major differences: the vast majority of the attacks were against military personnel, especially british army. There were the occasional civilian target like the UN guy, but those were very few.
Even the most famous attack against "king david hotel" is often viewed as being against a civilian target, because people "neglect" to mention that the hotel was, in fact, the British army headquarters. They also fail to mention that a warning was given BEFORE the attack via phone call. Such ruthless terrorists, warning their targets before they are blown up.

I also will admit when my country is in the wrong.

I think I've disagreed with Israel plenty, even in this discussion.

Take the attack on the USS Liberty for instance, still no official acknowledgement. Of course it was an accident. A ship flying an American flag on a clear sunny day was mistaken for an Egyptian freighter in international waters. Right.

Sure, because it's so unlikely that someone would use such a tactic? But more than that - why does that have anything to do with this discussion? There are several political matters regarding that incident, which have nothing to do with Palestinians.

Nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, of course it is ok for Israel to have them, but no one else. Israel can not even come clean on that one. Didn't we attack Iraq for the same offense? They of course, had none of them. You talk about double standards.

Except, no one fears Israel will use those weapons, unlike the countries around us. You forget that Israel RECEIVED its nuclear plant and technology from the French (before 1967 and the French and British  betrayal of Israel, France - and not the US - was Israel's main supplier of arms and technology, and was a close ally).
i.e. not only is it considered ok for Israel to hold the bomb, no one tried to stop it and indeed was helped in getting it. Perhaps people understood that Israel needs a deterrent, since it is repeatedly being attacked from all sides by hostile forces, some of which don't even have a border with Israel...
Also so far as I know, Israel doesn't have chemical or biological weapons. They are highly inefficient, and also we have no need.
You also forget that Israel's silence on the matter isn't just good for Israel, it has served the Arab countries around us pretty well. If Israel doesn't have weapons, officially, there is no reason for the Arab nations around us to develop them, a development they can hardly afford and maintain.

As for the Palestinians and the right for self determination - I am of the opinion that everyone has such a right, that we ourselves as Jews have used it, and we cannot deny it of others.
But I find it hard to argue with people who point out, as Roen did, that the Palestinians themselves consider their own nationality as part of the greater, Arab nationality (or Pan-Arabism, as it is usually called, which is a view that states that all the Arab nations are in fact one nation, and calls for a unification of all the Arab states in the middle east). Pan-Arabism was VERY popular at the time of Israel's greatest wars. Only after it lost some ground did peace happen between Israel and Egypt (which was considered a blow to Pan-Arabism, and a lot of Arab nations were VERY pissed off on Egypt for it). The Palestinians are STILL very angry, because with the decline of Pan-Arabism, they lost a lot of support from the Arab countries around them.
Look at Egypt and Gaza - there is no "Israeli blockade" on Gaza. There is a blockade, by both Israel AND Egypt. No one cares that Egypt enforces a blockade. For some reason it is perfectly clear why Egypt believes a blockade is necessary. It's just the Israel blockade that's a problem.

And, as I said, the Palestinians are often recognized by a country of origin before they arrived in Palestine, like a lot of Jews are.
Of course, nowadays both nations have a lot of local born citizens, etc., so we're stuck with each other until we figure it out.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 02:29:14 PM by dror »

Offline dror

Maybe one day your country will lift their foot off the neck of the Palestinians. If not, hopefully the world will eventually force it to.


Ah, BDS. The greatest Pallywood of them all.
BDS has nothing to do with peace in Israel. BDS wants to destroy the Jewish state, exile Jews to other countries and have a Palestinian state across all the land.

Don't believe me?
Read what pro BDS people have to say.